Department of Education Lawsuits: A Landscape of Legal Challenges

The Department of Education (ED) faces numerous lawsuits challenging its policies and actions. These legal battles span a wide range of issues, from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives to the rights of students with disabilities and the dismantling of federal programs. This article examines several examples of these lawsuits, highlighting the legal arguments and the impact they have on education.

Challenges to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives

One area of significant legal contention involves the Department of Education's stance on DEI initiatives. Several lawsuits have challenged the department's efforts to restrict or eliminate DEI programs in schools and higher education institutions.

NEA v. Department of Education: The "Dear Colleague" Directive

In one such case, the National Education Association (NEA) and other organizations filed a lawsuit against the Department of Education challenging its February "Dear Colleague" directive. This directive sought to restrict DEI efforts in schools nationwide. The plaintiffs argued that the directive violated the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The NEA argued that the "Dear Colleague" directive unconstitutionally restricts speech by prohibiting educators from teaching about race, diversity, equity, and inclusion. It also broadly bans DEI programs, including student groups and faculty associations, coercing educational institutions into self-censorship through the threat of losing federal funding. The lawsuit also claimed that the letter failed to define key terms and practices, leaving educators uncertain about what is prohibited and vulnerable to arbitrary enforcement, violating the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, it was argued that the letter imposes new legal obligations without the required process and justification, making it arbitrary, capricious, and legally invalid, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The lawsuit also alleged that the letter misrepresents and overstates the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also weighed in, with ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero stating, "The Dear Colleague Letter is a brazen attempt to intimidate schools into abandoning lawful efforts to create inclusive learning environments."

Read also: The CPB Logo: A Visual History

Ultimately, the Department of Education conceded the end of the "Dear Colleague" directive. According to Sharif El-Mekki, CEO at The Center for Black Educator Development, “This ruling affirms what educators and communities have long known: celebrating the full existence of every person and sharing the truth about our history is essential." Becky Pringle, president at the National Education Association, added, "The Trump administration’s unlawful Dear Colleague Letter and certification requirement have now been vacated and abandoned, underscoring how badly Trump and McMahon overreached in their attempt to interfere with curriculum and instruction."

Educators of Color Loan Forgiveness Program

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) and the Providence Public School District (PPSD) over their “Educators of Color Loan Forgiveness Program.” This program allowed new PPSD teachers who identify as “teachers of color” to receive up to $25,000 in student loan forgiveness, while excluding white teachers.

The United States alleged that RIDE and PPSD established the Program in 2021, in partnership with the Rhode Island Foundation (RIF), to provide $3,175,000 in student loan forgiveness to “teachers of color” over at least five years. The Program was described as an “incentive” to “encourage teachers of color” to teach at PPSD and obliges PPSD to “recruit and retain up to 127 teachers of color” during that period. Under the Program, “Teachers of color” includes teachers “who identify as Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, and/or 2 or more races” and excludes only white teachers. In its complaint, the United States alleges that this race-based exclusion is a pattern or practice of discrimination of PPSD teachers who do not identify as “teachers of color” in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

The complaint asked the court to declare that the Program discriminates on the basis of race, to enter a permanent injunction against RIDE and PPSD stopping them from implementing the Program or any similar race-based program, and to award equitable relief to PPSD teachers who were not eligible for the Program solely because of their race. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division stated, “While assisting new teachers in paying off their student loans may be a worthy cause, such a benefit of employment simply cannot be granted or withheld on the basis of the teachers’ race.”

Challenges to Equity Assistance Centers

Another lawsuit involved the Department of Education's decision to eliminate the federal equity assistance center program (EAC Program). The MAEC and Legal Defense Fund (LDF) filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Education challenging its recent move to eliminate the federal equity assistance center program (EAC Program). The lawsuit references the Department of Education's action, which took place in February, to abruptly terminate the EAC program and funding to MAEC and other grantees.

According to Derrick Johnson, President and CEO of the NAACP, "For so many Black students across our nation, EAC programs serve as a vital pathway to ensuring they can access the critical resources they need to thrive in classrooms and beyond." The lawsuit asserts that the Department of Education's move to terminate the equity assistance centers is a part of President Trump's unlawful and discriminatory attack on so-called "diversity, equity, and inclusion" initiatives.

Rights of Students with Disabilities

The rights of students with disabilities are another area where the Department of Education has faced legal challenges. These lawsuits often involve allegations of discrimination, inadequate services, and violations of federal laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Dismantling of the Department of Education

One significant lawsuit, Somerville Public Schools et al v. Trump et al, challenged the dismantling of the Department of Education. The case argues that because the Department was created by Congress, it cannot be restructured or eliminated without Congressional approval.

According to Shira Wakschlag, Senior Executive Officer of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel, and Katy Neas, Chief Executive Officer of The Arc of the United States, "Weakening or eliminating the Department of Education will make it harder for students with disabilities to receive the education they are guaranteed under federal law."

Delays in Special Education Services

In JSM v. New York City Department of Education, families of New York City schoolchildren with disabilities filed a lawsuit alleging that they were being denied the special education services they needed due to excessive delays in the due process complaint system. The lawsuit claimed that these delays violated federal and state laws requiring timely hearings for children with disabilities.

Under the settlement, NYCDOE and NYSED will ensure that substantially all families receive timely decisions on their due process complaints. It also requires that NYCDOE and NYSED make systemic changes to improve their hearing systems, including improving their technological systems to make them more efficient; changing the way they handle resolution and settlements of complaints; providing oversight and training to hearing officers; increasing transparency into the system for families and advocates; and providing special protections for students whose hearing decisions are overdue.

Other Significant Legal Cases

In addition to the lawsuits discussed above, there are several other significant legal cases involving the Department of Education. These cases cover a wide range of issues, including:

D.R. v. Michigan Department of Education: This lawsuit was brought on behalf of thousands of parents and students of Flint, Michigan, against the Michigan Department of Education, Flint Community Schools, and the Genesee Intermediate School District.
M.A. v. Abbott v. Burke: ELC has served as legal counsel for the plaintiff-class of over 300,000 school-aged children in 31 low-wealth, urban school districts in New Jersey.
Cortes v. NYSER v. State: ELC joined Michael Rebell and Morgan Lewis & Bockius in the NYSER lawsuit to compel New York State to fulfill its constitutional obligation to adequately fund the public schools in the wake of the landmark Campaign for Fiscal Equity rulings.
Loper Bright Enterprises V.: In 2024, the Supreme Court case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Previously, courts had to interpret regulations from governmental agencies as if those regulations were speaking for Congress. This could potentially impact laws with regulations like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Texas V.: This lawsuit (originally Texas v. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) updated Section 504 regulations. While the constitutional claim has been dropped, the lawsuit continues.

Broader Education Policy Challenges

Beyond specific programs and student rights, the Department of Education has also faced lawsuits challenging broader education policies. These challenges often involve allegations of overreach, abuse of power, or violations of constitutional principles.

Executive Orders and Federal Funding

Several lawsuits have challenged executive orders issued by the President that impact education. For example, President Trump issued an executive order attacking state regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). The order directs federal agencies to withhold funding from states if they enact regulations that are more than “minimally burdensome.”

The ACLU issued a statement on President Trump’s unilateral attack on state regulation of artificial intelligence, stating, “Moreover, the executive order is not just dangerous, it’s unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made clear that the president may not unilaterally and retroactively change the conditions on federal grants to states after the fact."

Termination of Grants and Contracts

The Trump administration terminated $400 million in federal contracts and grants with Columbia University in early March over claims of antisemitic harassment on campus. The administration launched a review of federal grants and contracts held by Harvard University on similar grounds, demanding that the university end all racial preferences in admissions and hiring, hold student groups accountable for university policy violations, cooperate with federal immigration authorities, close DEI offices and end all DEI programming, take steps to prevent the admission of international students who are "hostile to … American values and institutions," and more.

tags: #department #of #education #lawsuit #examples